UV Filter on Canon 400mm 5.6 Lens

[DavieG]

I wondered if Ian and others use a UV Filter with the Canon 400m 5.6 prime lens? If so, what kind of effect does it have on the final image?

[IanF]

No I don't use one. The main problems are flare which at the very least reduces contrast and loss of image quality through having additional glass surfaces for the light to pass through. I just leave the lens hood extended which is more than enough to protect the front element. When transporting elsewhere then I always use a lens cap.

[alan crossley]

just the question I have have been ponering on for the last few weeks, now I can save myself some money by not buying a flilter for my 400 5.6 lens. Cheers Ian

[DavieG]

Thanks Ian. I did wonder if it would have a detremental effect on image quality.

[StewH]

Another possible issue that caused me a problem once that in horrid weather (heavy snow), I got condensation between the filter and the lens and had to remove it to photograph anything anyway.  Extreme conditions, I know but another reason to wonder 'why bother'.

Stew.

[Whitfield Benson]

I am amazed that someone should claim that UV filters have a detrimental effect on images ( not if you buy a decent one and keep it clean )! Filters certainly do not cause flare ! Using a lens hood stops flare ( the casting of light on a glass ). A good UV filter will protect your lens from getting scratches or water on the front element. When using lenses at the seashore for instance the filter may get covered in light spray which then can be screwed off and cleaned. The lens itself can be ruined if it does not have a filter in these circumstances. The comment about condensation is a fair one though and in those conditions just take the filter off. I have been a professional photographer for many years, and as such I feel qualified to answer your question. I hope you enjoy many years of good photography, but beware those who talk about what they dont fully understand....